MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895143931 · doi:10.1186/s13054-018-2164-0

Focal ischemic stroke leads to lung injury and reduces alveolar macrophage phagocytic capability in rats

2018· article· en· W2895143931 on OpenAlexafffund
Cynthia S. Samary, Alane Bernardo Ramos, Lígia A. Maia, Nazareth N. Rocha, Raquel Ferreira de Magalhães, Amanda L. Clevelario, Pedro M. Pimentel‐Coelho, Rosalia Méndez‐Otero, Fernanda Ferreira Cruz, Vera Luíza Capelozzi, Tatiana Paula Teixeira Ferreira, Thea Koch, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Claúdia C. dos Santos, Paolo Pelosi, Pedro Leme Silva, Patrícia R. M. Rocco

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersFundação Oswaldo CruzMinistério da SaúdeUniversità degli Studi di GenovaFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversity of TorontoUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroTechnische Universität DresdenUniversidade de São PauloCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMedicineAlveolar macrophageLungStroke (engine)MacrophageIschemic strokeDiffuse alveolar hemorrhageDiffuse alveolar damagePathologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ischemic stroke causes brain inflammation, which we postulate may result in lung damage. Several studies have focused on stroke-induced immunosuppression and lung infection; however, the possibility that strokes may trigger lung inflammation has been overlooked. We hypothesized that even focal ischemic stroke might induce acute systemic and pulmonary inflammation, thus altering respiratory parameters, lung tissue integrity, and alveolar macrophage behavior. METHODS: Forty-eight Wistar rats were randomly assigned to ischemic stroke (Stroke) or sham surgery (Sham). Lung function, histology, and inflammation in the lung, brain, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and circulating plasma were evaluated at 24 h. In vitro, alveolar macrophages from naïve rats (unstimulated) were exposed to serum or BALF from Sham or Stroke animals to elucidate possible mechanisms underlying alterations in alveolar macrophage phagocytic capability. Alveolar macrophages and epithelial and endothelial cells of Sham and Stroke animals were also isolated for evaluation of mRNA expression of interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α. RESULTS: Twenty-four hours following ischemic stroke, the tidal volume, expiratory time, and mean inspiratory flow were increased. Compared to Sham animals, the respiratory rate and duty cycle during spontaneous breathing were reduced, but this did not affect lung mechanics during mechanical ventilation. Lungs from Stroke animals showed clear evidence of increased diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary edema, and inflammation markers. This was associated with an increase in ultrastructural damage, as evidenced by injury to type 2 pneumocytes and endothelial cells, cellular infiltration, and enlarged basement membrane thickness. Protein levels of proinflammatory mediators were documented in the lung, brain, and plasma (TNF-α and IL-6) and in BALF (TNF-α). The phagocytic ability of macrophages was significantly reduced. Unstimulated macrophages isolated from naïve rats only upregulated expression of TNF-α and IL-6 following exposure to serum from Stroke rats. Exposure to BALF from Stroke or Sham animals did not change alveolar macrophage behavior, or gene expression of TNF-α and IL-6. IL-6 expression was increased in macrophages and endothelial cells from Stroke animals. CONCLUSIONS: In rats, focal ischemic stroke is associated with brain-lung crosstalk, leading to increased pulmonary damage and inflammation, as well as reduced alveolar macrophage phagocytic capability, which seems to be promoted by systemic inflammation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207